Giuliani's loyalty to his last police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, bordered on the blind. The two men had come to know each other when Kerik, acting as an off-duty cop, drove Giuliani during his first mayoral campaign in 1989 (Giuliani lost to Dinkins). Kerik was the sort of diamond in the rough Giuliani appreciated—a tough street cop who got things done. Giuliani has insisted that he did not know about Kerik's questionable dealings with two businessmen with alleged mob connections. City hall records reviewed by NEWSWEEK suggest that the mayor may have been briefed on some of these problems just before Kerik was appointed commissioner. But Giuliani has said he has no memory, and his tight palace guard remains close-mouthed. ("There were mistakes made with Bernie Kerik," Giuliani said earlier this month, adding that Kerik's wrongdoing should not outweigh his crimefighting successes.)

That's quite mild — from a big cover story in a prominent newsweekly that seems aimed at digging up all the dirt on Giuliani.

There's a reminder of Giuliani's use of government power to retaliate against a museum that exhibited art that offended him:

He was outraged at an art show at the Brooklyn Museum called "Sensation." The exhibits included a picture of a black Virgin Mary surrounded by bits of pornography and a pile of elephant dung. Giuliani ordered the museum to shut down the show or lose its city subsidy. He lost in the courts; the show went on.

Newsweek connects this to his support of a priest charged with accused of molestation and characterizes Giuliani's "moralism" as uneven and " tribal" ("tribal" because the priest was from his neighborhood).

Here is the Wikipedia description of The Holy Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili: A black Madonna smeared with elephant dung and surrounded by small collaged images of female genitalia from pornographic magazines.

Would it have been so hard for Newsweek to have portrayed the piece accurately and honestly? Apparently it was.

Given Newsweek's inability, really its unwillingness, to be honest about the basis for Giuliani's involvement in the controversy, why believe anything it purports?

I think Rudy's position is that the abortion issue should be returned to the states. There's no mention of abortion in the Constitution and it shouldn't be a federal issue. There's a tremendous difference between Rudy and Hillary on this issue.

I am not sure I can vote for someone who gave money to Planned Parenthood. Then he says he is anti-abortion. Please.

Say it right. Can a conservative in good conscience vote for someone who gave money to Planned Parenthood, but explains it as actually having been his ex-wife who gave the money, saying that he himself is anti-abortion?

I dunno.

But think about it. Do you think the conservative should instead vote for someone who gave money to Planned Parenthood, is proud of it, would give again, and would take your money and give to Planned Parenthood too if if she could? Is that your candidate?

Don't take either of my last two comments as endorsements. I lived under Rudy the Despot in the mid 90's, and while I liked his tough style, I came to the conclusion he would not be a good fit for the presidency.

Politics is personal, and Rudy cost me a few extra bucks to eat. NYC used to have the best street vendors. Hot tea and some carbs for maybe two bucks. Rudy declared the street carts a safety hazard on behalf of the business owners that stuffed his pockets.

So his "palace guard" is not talking? Shocka, for this is such a fair article!

As for the Virgin Mary episode, he threatened to cut off city funds because the exhibit was offensive to many. The dispute was resolved in the courtroom, not the streets or in smoke-filled rooms. Did Newsweek publish the Mohammed cartoons, by the way? And if not, why not? I guess some religions have a right to be offended and some don't.

John there are two sides to the street cart debate. The restaurant and stores that pay sales taxes and payroll taxes have the right to have the law enforced so that carts are licensed and regularized. I always patronize street carts for coffee and dirty water dogs, but you also have the unregulated vendors who spread a blanket on the floor and sell everything from bootleg videos, to knock off handbags to fake Rolex watches. They are not doing anyone any good. A legitimate vendor can get a valid license and set up in an area where he won't totally screw up the traffic flow and stop the foot traffic in place by blocking the sidewalk. Have a little compassion for the small businessman who has to conform to the onerous tax and regulatory oppression of the city bureaucracy, only to have an illegal street vendor undercut his prices with fake merchandise and fly by night sales tactics. Sometimes they will set up right outside the store to steal customers. Most businesses in NYC are not big corporations, but family owned ventures where people invest their life savings. Licensed vendors are great but the unlicensed ones are very destructive to both legit businesses and the consumer as well.

I haven't been back to NYC, so I don't know know how it all turned out.

I do know this. Rudy favors amnesty, not for illegals, but for his business owning constituents. If he was for the little man, he would of worked on a licensing program, instead of treating it like taxi medallions.

At the time that Rudy was using pedestrian safety issues to clamp down on vendors, restaurants were expanding into the sidewalks.

I haven't been back in a good while, so at this point, I am all bluster.

I also like the frequently stated claims that when people got to know the real Giuliani, like New Yorkers, he would lose his luster. This is apparently intended to disabuse us of the notion that he was twice elected by New Yorkers and while running for his second term was endorsed by the New York Times.

Rules aren't really the issue John. I am against a lot of them; just witness the discussion regarding smoking in bars. But the unlicensed street vendors who block the entire street in many business strips are generally a thing of the past. They are still there, but the enforcement action keeps them to a tolerable level. The licensed street vendors are great and not a problem in any way. People line up and get a great cup of coffee and a donut. Or at lunch time a plate of chicken rice and beans or a falafel without a problem. It's the cowboy vendors that are the problem. They get a bunch of knock-offs and pirated videos and jump from place to place. Many of them are immigrants from Africa who are really exploited by the handlers who line them up in the morning and kick the crap out of them if don't sell enough during the day. Sometimes it seems like a Dickens’s novel come to life. The problem with Rudy is that he never knows when enough is enough. He is sure to overstep and then it will hit the fan. That was the real cause of his low popularity. He had gored too many oxes and the natural fatigue due to the constant conflict had started to set in. Nanny Bloomberg is much worse in the way he has manipulated zoning and given tax breaks and turned vast swatches of the city over to big time developers. But he has a boring manner, so most people don't know what is going on under their noses. One day they will wake up with monster developments blocking out the sun and they will wonder how that happened. The Nanny is a great businessman and he has sold the city down the river, it's just not clear yet. But in about five years when these developments are complete, a lot of people are going to wonder what hit them.

Zeb Quinn said..."Do you think the conservative should instead vote for someone who gave money to Planned Parenthood, is proud of it, would give again, and would take your money and give to Planned Parenthood too if if she could? Is that your candidate?"

It should be.

Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization that does much, much more than merely deal with abortion issues.

You'd know that if you were to pull your conservative head out of your ass.

Your reference point would be: ChildPredators.com, a site run by Life Dynamics Inc., a conservative organization founded by Mark Crutcher, and dedicated to ending a woman's right to choice.

One of LDI's "sting" operations involved taped telephone calls to approximately 800 abortion facilities affiliated with the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood. Audio files from these calls are a key feature of LDI's ChildPredators.com web site.

Critics argue that the facilities in question are in compliance with reporting laws, and that the allegations are part of a program of harassment and intimidation of abortion providers.

Being anti-woman's choice or anti-abortion i your right, but Planned Parenthood does much more than advise people about abortions.

*Then again, can I assume you're also against any form of birth control or protection from potentially life threatening venereal disease, too?

I agree John, the coffee vendors are out in force and the only place I will buy my morning donut and extra large black cup of joe. The soup vendor cart from Ratners deli on 45th between fifth and sixth is great and I highly recommend his lentil and especially the matzo ball. The falafel guy on the corner of 51st and sixth is as good as it gets. There is a guy who sells the best lamb kebabs at union square and 17th that melts like butter in your mouth. But all of those guys are licensed and subject to some basic rules that are necessary for both health and safety reasons. Because they have licenses, they adhere to a minimum standard of behavior that lets the city function. It's the Wild West guys that cause the problems. If anything, they should license a lot more people, especially food vendors like the guys in Red Hook who Nanny Bloomberg is trying to destroy. The food vendors are really not the problem. It's the giant moving tables with 200 knock off handbags and the table with the fake pashmina scarf’s and the pile of stolen clothing on 32nd off Seventh that are the problem. That is what the cops are hitting especially now during the holiday season.

Although each Planned Parenthood group is separate, here is a typical privacy policy on disclosure of patients' health information:

Public Health Risks

We may disclose health information about you for public health activities. These activities generally include the following:

* To prevent or control disease, injury or disability; * To report births and deaths; * To report child abuse or neglect; * To report reactions to medications or problems with products; * To notify people of recalls of products they may be using; * To notify a person who may have been exposed to a disease or may be at risk for contracting or spreading a disease or condition; * To notify the appropriate government authority if we believe a patient has been the victim of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.

We will only make this disclosure if you agree or when required or authorized by law.

Growing Up Giuliani and of course is a takeoff on some dumb TV serioes called Growing Up Gotti.

I've never heard of Growing up Gotti. Growing up Giuliani makes me think of Bringing up Baby. And also Growing Pains. But if you are looking for a reason to be offended, like so many in this country, by all means have at it.

Your are either incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous. I'll be generous and assume incredibly naive. So, in the spirit of that generosity, I'll give you a free tip. Plug "planned parenthood statutory rape" without the quotes into google, then read what all comes back. Follow links you encounter and be intellectually curious. You'll learn about and find cases from all over the country --places like Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, and California-- where local PP chapters cover up for an enable the rape of children as young as 11. It's what they do, and they're proud of it.

Either be one with them and be proud of it like they are, or be aghast at it like normal people are. But don't deny it. Denying reality isn't an option. Mmmm-kay?

joe said..."Let me know when Newsweak does an equivalent hit piece on Hillary! or Saint Obama, or any Democrat for that matter. Until then they are nothing but partisan, sycophantic institutional liars."

Zeb,If you're remotely interested, you might be interested in knowing that there are child abusing priests in...Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, and California...and every other state in America. (And there are also corrupt police officers in every state, too.)

Should we disband the Catholic religion, police forces or get rid of ALL the priests and cops?

Those claiming that Rudy was a lousy mayor must having been living under a rock during the '90s. He was elected in '93 in large part because Dinkins (and Koch and Beame) had proven ineffective in dealing with everthing about the City that was spinning out of control. In the early '90s, if you drove in the City, you could count on being accosted at red lights by the omnipresent squigee men (I noticed recently that they are starting to make a comeback on the 3rd Ave bridge between the Deegan and the FDR). The subways were a mess -- anyone remember all the subway cars completely painted over by graffiti, to the point were you couldn't see out the windows to know what station you were coming into? The homeless encampments that Dinkins and Koch had, insanely, tolerated and allowed to spread throughout the City were completely out of control. That Calcutta-on-the-Hudson stuff wasn't restricted to Tompkins Sq Park. Shortly before Rudy was elected, I remember walking down 1st Ave just below 42nd St going to a medical apptment at NYU Med Center. A whole sidewalk along a blockfront had been taken over by cardboard shacks. The filth and stench were unbelievable, and fed the sense of the City as a lawless, ungovernable mess. The Crown Heights riots, and the pathetic response by the Dinkins team, topped it all off, and were enough for the voters to elect a Republican (in a City where it can be difficult to find one).

Rudy tackled those problems, and quite a bit (e.g., the Bd of Ed bureaucracy as well as the teachers' union) in addition. Along the way, he wasn't shy about taking on the hucksters (Sharpton being the huckster in chief). Rudy's constituency was never the Upper West Side crowd, and he never did particularly well in Manhattan. But his popularity in the overwhelmingly Dem neighborhoods of Queens and Brooklyn were enough to carry him through, twice.

It's not much of a criticism to say that a chief executive (and CEO) has an "authoritarian streak." Of course they do, and who would want a chief executive (of anything) who didn't? It's also true that Rudy shares a number of traits with Bush. But it's the differences with Bush that are more striking. Basically, Rudy enjoys politics including its blood-sport elements. He liked taking on Sharpton (just as Sharpton liked taking on Rudy). Rudy wants to mix it up with opponents, often publicly, and puts a lot of energy into the give-and-take of politics. In the process he has to come to terms with his opponents' arguments and asnwer them -- it's that trial lawyer imperative -- and as a result becomes a better executive.

Rudy wants to be a political leader in a way that Bush has never been. Except during the 2004 campaign and the months immediately after 9/11, Bush has been strangely absent as a political leader, and rarely made much use of the "bully pulpit." It's as if Bush has no interest in trying to persuade; he just wants to plow through and Get It Done. Rudy shares the desire to get things done, but he also knows, in a way Bush doesn't, that a successful leader needs to be engaged in the public debate to do that.

As for "Giuliani's use of government power to retaliate against a museum that exhibited art that offended him," that overstates the matter a bit. Ruidy reminded the stewards of the City's public cultural institutions (the Brooklyn Museum being one) that they were answerable for the shows they decided to put on. Rudy's harangue didn't do the Museum a bit of harm, and pointed out to the often out-of-touch avant-garde crowd in charge of those cultural institutions that public museums aren't their private play thing.

Those claiming that Rudy was a lousy mayor must having been living under a rock during the '90s.

Caca de toro.

Crime started to go down under Dinkins, and it continued under Rudy as it did in every other major city in the country for two simple reasons -- the crack epidemic burned out, and the robust Clinton economy.

Rudy was an appalling prick bully of a mayor who went out of his way to be hostile to black people and whose only notable accomplishment was to ignore everybody's advice and put the disaster command center in the WTC after the first attack. That and having a mobbed up police commissioner, truly a first to be proud of.

Inconvenient truth: The day before 9/11, Rudy's approval rating in NYC was eleven percent.

Please, Republicans -- run this criminal fraud for president. Please....

christopher: I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it would almost be worth it to me for her to win, if only to enjoy the spectacle of the heads of reactionary fuckwits like you exploding on election day.

Cute. But you guys really should nominate Hillary. Like Pogo, I'll be voting against her b/c I'm not wild about voting for any of the GOP candidates. But if the GOP loses, we need a wartime POTUS thats an adult - the other Dem candidates are sophomoric weaklings who will only encourage our enemies with their fecklessness.

Brylun, I just don't trust it when politicians explain away their votes or money choices! I remember people telling me that when W got re-elected, he would show his conservative roots. I believed them, sap that I can be. I trust voting records and IRS records more than I do political statements. I hope that you are right and I am wrong about it though.

Zeb, I oppose too many of Senator Clinton's positions to ever vote for her. In Giuliani v Clinton I could perhaps stay at home, or vote for the Libertarian candidate, or hold my nose and vote R. None of those fill me with anything close to excitement.

Lucky, while I appreciate our differences on the value of Planned Parenthood, abortion is a big issue for me. We disagree, I respect that, but for me Planned Parenthood has blod on their hands. Let's just leave it there, you know what I would say and that would detract from our current discussion. So when someone gives them money and wants my vote, they are asking a LOT.

I never thought of myself as a one issue voter, but maybe I am becoming one, or maybe the thought of helping elect Ms. Clinton through passivity would be enough to push me toward Giuliani despite my strong ideological differences with him.

Could someone post their 3 or 4 reasons why they think Giuliani would defeat Clinton? Just curious....

(1): He's closer to the political center than she is. The more-moderate candidate usually wins (the only exceptions I can think of in my lifetime were 1976 and 1980).

(2): He's got far more government experience than she does, especially as an executive (an area she has no experience in at all). He can point to quite a few positive accomplishments for which, fairly or unfairly, he can successfully claim credit (e.g. reducing New York's crime rate).

On a side note, I'm amused at how many people who parrot the "Clinton cut the deficit line" -- based solely on the fact that Clinton happened to be in office when the deficit shrank -- are so quick to deny Rudy any credit for the good things that happened to New York on his watch. But anyway...

(3): Rudy's an engaging public speaker; Hillary isn't. Odds are good that he'll be the winner of whatever debates they have.

(4): Approximately half of voters (it varies from poll to poll) absolutely refuse to consider voting for Hillary Clinton. The polls show a much lesser degree of hostility to Giuliani.

On a side note, I'm amused at how many people who parrot the "Clinton cut the deficit line" -- based solely on the fact that Clinton happened to be in office when the deficit shrank -- are so quick to deny Rudy any credit for the good things that happened to New York on his watch. But anyway...

I seem to recall that to a person, the congressional Republicans predicted that Clinton's economic policies would destroy the country.

I believe it was Dick Armey who said that after a year of Clintonomics, the American people would be hunting after Democrats with torches and pitchforks.

Only if Rudy beat Mrs. Clinton badly in the debates would he stand a chance of winning the election. And since it's terribly hard to beat a master of platitudinous obfuscation in a debate our next president is most likely Hitlery.

Rather a slanted hed, don't you think? Might it not be that Newsweek is simply just telling the rest of America what many New Yorkers already know? Namely, that Rudy is a bully and a liar and a creep and a panderer to the racists among his base?

As for Chris Ofili's painting of the Madonna: I saw the painting at the Brooklyn Museum myself, and it was NOT "smeared with dung." One of the figure's breasts was a three dimensional projection from the canvas, and was simply a modeled ball of elephant dung. Of course, the artist is African, and in Africa elephant dung is apparently a symbol of fertility or somesuch thing. We cannot assume our own associations with dung are those of the artist or have anything to do with the meaning(s) he intended.

As for the pasted cutouts of vaginas, I viewed the painting and I don't recall seeing anything at all like that, and they were not part of the original controversy. However, I did find a review on the web by the NY Time's Michael Kimmelman, and he did describe the painting as including cutouts of vaginas,(and buttocks, too). He did remark they were not apparent without close study of the painting.

Must we assume cutouts of vaginas are, a prior, offensive? If the Madonna is a symbol of fruitfulness, can we not reasonably assume that images of vaginas are simply intended by the artist to amplify this notion of fertility, of fecundity?

No, Rudy had no good reason to inject himself into what was a silly controversy ginned up by the Catholic League except to pander, as always, to the ignorance and xenophobia of his base.

As a New Yorker and liberal I would be fine with Rudy as president. The one thing it would do is stop America's religious fanatics in their path which is very appealing to me. Maybe they can start their own party and then the republicans won't kiss their asses anymore.

Also, because New York is so much more fabulous than the rest of the country it is only right that the two candidates are representatives of New York. The only sad news about this is they will have to each select some southern to appeal to the south. But in this case Rudy or Hilary's VP will be basically responsible for nothing. No Dick Cheney VP's with either one of these candidates.

christopher:I seem to recall that to a person, the congressional Republicans predicted that Clinton's economic policies would destroy the country.

Guess who was wrong...

Uh, you are. Shortly after the election, Clinton paid a courtesy call to Greenspan's house.

Greenspan was very worried about Clinton's economic policy and had him stay over. Greenspan spent the night lecturing Clinton on the folly of his plan. To his credit, Clinton listened and abandoned that policy.

As a New Yorker and liberal I would be fine with Rudy as president. The one thing it would do is stop America's religious fanatics in their path which is very appealing to me. Maybe they can start their own party and then the republicans won't kiss their asses anymore.

Uh...You do know that Rudy just cheerfully accepted the endorsement of Pat Robertson, right?

"One of the figure's breasts was a three dimensional projection from the canvas, and was simply a modeled ball of elephant dung."

That's the art criticism of asking what the meaning of is is.

Anyway, the show was broadly offensive, and designed to be, and was held at a publicly funded museum. Do you think it's fair to take tax money from people and use it to display material that is broadly offensive to them?

I was offended by the painting, but not on moral but aesthetic grounds. It was, literally and figuratively, a piece of shit.

Greenspan was very worried about Clinton's economic policy and had him stay over. Greenspan spent the night lecturing Clinton on the folly of his plan. To his credit, Clinton listened and abandoned that policy.

And to a person, the congressional Republicans all predicted that the policies that Clinton in fact enacted would doom the country to a mammoth recession or worse.

Dick Armey predicted voters would be hunting Dems down with pitchforks.

Apparently, they were either wrong or they were just being disingenuous for political advantage.

christopher: Why does it not surprise me that the sociopath with the endless hardon for torture and blowing up brown people

Again, I never said that. Whats with the sociopath label? And you're the one who refers to arabs as "brown people", not me. All I've EVER said about arabs is that they deserve a shot at the same Liberty you abuse.

thinks Kerry was anything other than a war hero?

War hero? He lied about two purple hearts [self-inflicted accidents with no enemy in sight], malingered to get out of the combat zone, falsely testified that his fellow soldiers were war criminals. No surprise you find that "heroic".

Do you think it's fair to take tax money from people and use it to display material that is broadly offensive to them?

Do you think it's fair to take tax money from people and use it to wage an unjustifiable war that is broadly offensive to them?

Rudy's ludicrously philistine attack on that museum -- along with his appalling reaction to various police outrages -- were hugely embarassing to the city, and might help even you to understand why his approval rating was eleven percent on 9/10.

War hero? He lied about two purple hearts [self-inflicted accidents with no enemy in sight], malingered to get out of the combat zone, falsely testified that his fellow soldiers were war criminals. No surprise you find that "heroic"

Every thing in the above rant is a demonstrably untrue, including the words of and the.

Get back to me when you can find somebody who remembers serving with Bush in the Air National Guard in Alabama...

Why does it not surprise me that the sociopath with the endless hardon for torture and blowing up brown people thinks Kerry was anything other than a war hero?

Even if Kerry was a war hero -- and since he'll never let me review his military records I guess I'll never know for sure -- that doesn't change the fact that he engaged in anti-American fraud AFTER he served in Vietnam.

Serving well on a swift boat doesn't make up for helping stage the Winter Soldier sham, or slandering his fellow soldiers in front of Congress. Hero or not, he turned traitor once he was safely out of harm's way.

No he didn't. FDL is spinning [and pls reference a site with more credibility next time]

From FDL:

"Pickens, who provided $3 million to bankroll the group during Kerry’s race against President Bush, responded by saying he won’t consider giving Kerry the reward unless he surrenders his combat films, additional military records and wartime journal."

Total spin. I saw the original offer - Kerry "surrenders his combat films, additional military records and wartime journal" was part of the original offer they discussed.

Sounds like Kerry couldn't perform and is playing the Fraud again. If anything, he could at least refute the claims he insists are lies, money or not. Bravely ran away...

Just to clarify a little about the Brooklyn Museum controversy: The artist Chris Ofili is English "of Nigerian origin," not African. Elephant Dung Artist Scoops Up 1998 Turner Prize: "Manchester-born Ofili comes out of the Chelsea School of Art with a masters degree from the Royal College of Art, London, and has exhibited frequently in Britain, continental Europe and America." He had won the Turner Prize the year before (1998). Up to the time of the controversy, all his artwork included elephant dung, including such works as "The Adoration of Captain Shit and the Legend of the Black Stars" and "Afrodizzia."

The exhibition was entirely of works owned by the Saatchi gallery of London. The purpose of bringing it to NY was to stir up controversy that would lead to higher prices for the artists, and commissions for the gallery. Using a publicly-funded museum saved the gallery close to a million dollars for what amounted to a publicity stunt. Case pages from Northwestern: Manured Madonna, and More facts.

The publicity stunt was successful: in 2005, Ofili’s Afrodizzia sold for more than $1 million. The controversy really ought to be not over whether Giuliani is conservative, we already knew that, but whether directors of a publicly funded museum should be playing in the contemporary art market.

Christopher: You do know that the head Swift Boat guy's claim to fame is that he was hired to be one of the original Nixon Dirty Tricksters?

You know that Kerry's claim to fame is that he participated in and witnessed war crimes and did nothing to stop it? Didn't even report it. At least, thats according to his fraudulent testimony to Congress. Nice choice of a "hero" for you.

Lucky: I've never used any of those terms.

No, but you've used similar ones. Routinely. Nothing is worse than a troll whining about being maligned.

Lucky: Delete your pedophile comment, Fen.

Why? It was in response to Christopher, not you. Or is he your sock puppet?

aj,I could care less what you say about me or my opinions or comments, and calling me a jerk, moron, asshole or whatever is one thing, but when anyone implies I'm a child molester or pedophile, you've crossed a line.

*And don't give me any of that crap about me defending Polanski or Woody Allen. I defended their right to their own lives and never said Polanski didn't do what he was accused of. I've also never said anything that even remotely reflects an opinion that would lead to these child molester and pedophile comments.

You do know that the head Swift Boat guy's claim to fame is that he was hired to be one of the original Nixon Dirty Tricksters?

I can why you like Kerry so much -- you both enjoy spreading lies and slander about honest American soldiers.

After John Kerry lied to Congress in his 1971 testimony, John O'Neill -- himself a war hero and veteran Swift Boat commander -- contacted the Nixon administration and offered to give testimony against Kerry. They recruited him to be their public opponent to Kerry's North Vietnam-backed "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". But O'Neill was never involved in "dirty tricks". His role was simply to tell the truth, which was that the troops he had served with weren't war criminals.

They recruited him to be their public opponent to Kerry's North Vietnam-backed "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". But O'Neill was never involved in "dirty tricks". His role was simply to tell the truth, which was that the troops he had served with weren't war criminals.

Bullshit on stilts.

O'Neill was a lying weasel no different than Donald "ratfucker" Segretti.

Forty years later, he was doing it again.

As are you, with that "North Vietnam-backed" crack.

I'm waiting for you to trot out "the returning troops were spat on" bullshit.

But you are smart, I am sure you bought some of that life and disability insurance Ann was selling on her blog last month. For just a few cents per day, all of your final expenses would be fully covered (of course we all know it does not cover the price for a really really nice coffin).

Lucky: Fen, Calling someone a pedophile or child molester is beyond the pale...even for you.

[shrug] If I can handle Christopher mischaracterizing and smearing me as the sociopath with the endless hardon for torture and blowing up brown people then he can deal with me attacking his pedophilia.

Lucky: I again suggest you delete the comment.

uhm... No?

Lucky: but when anyone implies I'm a child molester or pedophile, you've crossed a line.

Its always a bit pathetic to see a troll get trolled. Lucky, with all due respect, 90% of your posts here are ad homs and character attacks. You've been playing with a double-edged blade for some time, and now you've been cut.

I'll bet that if you dialed the vitroil down some, your agitators would feel that their point is made and would back off.

christopher: Perhaps on the Bizarro World, but here on Earth it means exactly what I said.

No. For your definition to be valid, you must prove that the SwiftBoatVets lied about Kerry's record. You can't. Thats why you're stuck slinging unsupported assertions.

BTW, why has T. Boone punted on his offer?

He didn't. Read the FDL link again. Boone's condition that Kerry supply records, etc was always part of their original agreement. FDL [and you] are trying to pretend it was added in after Kerry accepted.

And again, what prevents Kerry from handing over that material along with his "proof" that the Swifties lied about his record? Nothing. Nothing but cowardice.

And yet "Swift-boating" has entered the vernacular as a synonym for "lying about somebody's record."

Only among left-wingers.

But hey, if it makes you feel better we can do things that way from now on. Lefties can pick the new insults, and the rest of us can pick the President. :)

Karma...

Karma indeed! Kerry built his political career out of attacking American soldiers -- leaving him unable to cash in on his "war hero" status when it really would have mattered to him. Instead, he enjoys the distinction of being the first person since 1948 to lose to a President that less than half of Americans thought was doing a good job. Despite every screw-up, every scandal, every mouthful of mangled words, despite generally being considered a bad President, Bush spanked Kerry with a bigger share of the vote than any President since his dad beat Dukakis in 1988.

So, yep -- karma. Its a bitch. But I'm sure Kerry doesn't mind seeing his life-long dream of being President go down in flames, so long as he can console himself with the fact that Obama and Clinton now use "Swift-Boat" as an insult. :)

Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used (primarily) as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.

Well, considering ad hominem is defined as "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect" or "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

AND

Smear is defined as "a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization"...

fen, you're welcome to submit your own sourced data to wikipedia. Some wikipedia articles contain inaccuracies due to vandalism. but in general every fact contained in a wikipedia article has a citation supporting it. For example, the wikipedia article on the John Kerry military service controversy lists every source supporting their assertions of how the Republican PAC "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" lied about Kerry's Vietnam service. You are welcome to follow up these sources, and refute them.

A new salvo has been fired in the perennial war over Wikipedia's accuracy.

Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School, published the results of his own Wikipedia study in the most recent edition of the online journal First Monday, and he came up with a surprising conclusion: experts rate the articles more highly than do non-experts.Related Stories

55 graduate students and research assistants examine one Wikipedia article apiece. Each participant was randomly placed into one of two groups: group one read articles that were in their field of study, while group two read randomly-assigned articles. Respondents were asked to identify any errors that they found.

Those in the expert group ranked their articles as generally credible, higher than those evaluated by the non-experts.

Chesney admits that this is unexpected, but has a possible explanation: "It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible."

"I defended their right to their own lives and never said Polanski didn't do what he was accused of. I've also never said anything that even remotely reflects an opinion that would lead to these child molester and pedophile comments."

"Polanski was set up by the mother for blackmail."

"rcocean said..."But Polanski is a child rapist and is pond scum."That's a flat out lie and of course, you're a frigging dolt."

"I assume you also know the supposed "victim" has nothing bu nice things to say about him these days...Come out of the cave..."

And it will be quickly edited out by biased admins. Don't beleive me, try it yourself. Post an edit that none of the swifties claims have been refuted, see how long it lasts [hint: it will be deleted w/o explanation]

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts

Not on political topics. The bias of the community renders Wiki inaccurate.

Former law student: where did you find "For example, the wikipedia article on the John Kerry military service controversy lists every source supporting their assertions of how the Republican PAC "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" lied about Kerry's Vietnam service."

All I could find was this "Defenders of John Kerry's war record asserted that some organizers of SBVT had close ties to the Bush presidential campaign and that SBVT's accusations were politically motivated and false."

With no footnote support. I was looking under John Kerry. Is there an entry for John Kerry military service? What am I missing?

"Not on political topics. The bias of the community renders Wiki inaccurate."

Well then fix the problems. Wikipedia (not just "wiki", which is the generic term for an editable site using "wiki" formatting) is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you can properly source your allegations, then edit the article. It's a chance to not just bitch about bias, but actually correct it.

jeff, to find the article on the John Kerry military service controversy, use this url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

Here's one example regarding Kerry's bronze star. Commander Thurlow says it was unearned because the boat was not under hostile fire. Of two commanders who support him, at the time one had a concussion and the other had left to escort the wounded to safety. Several percipient witnesses contradicted Thurlow's assertion: Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river...When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river." [21] Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach... Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

Christopher wrote: "Tmink -- the scary part is that so does a large part of the Republican base.

You think Evangelicals like Pat Robertson support the state of Israel because they like Jews?"

Christopher, I think you are right about the first statement. It is interesting, while I share much of their world view, I am not in favor of hurrying the apocalypse. I mean, it is the APOCALYPSE!

And I think you ask a fair question about Evangelicals and Jews. I think too many Evangelicals support Jews as a people while harboring bigoted attitudes. They is totally bogus, but I bet too often the case.

For me, I support Israel for religious as well as personal reasons. I had a semester in graduate school where all my professors were Jewish, most of them practicing Jews. It was so cool, and I learned some yiddish.

I see fen's problem with wikipedia. They are a compendium of facts, not wishful thinking. You need to say, Seriously, take up my challenge: edit the swiftboating entry to reflect that none of their claims have been substantiated Then the bias will disappear.

Obviously "swift-boating" has become a term of political jargon, as Wikipedia notes. What it hasn't done is enter vernacular (i.e., "plain, ordinary, everyday") English, as Christopher had claimed. If you used the term "swift-boating" in a conservation with a typical English speaker they're not going to know what the hell you're talking about.

The one complaint I have with the Wiki definition is that it doesn't say that the term is, thus far, used solely by the political left.

Revenent: Heh. I've heard it used just in the past few weeks by teens, in a non-political, even apolitical, sense--that is, as in: "Oh, you're shittin' me." Sorta like the evolution of "doing a Bill Clinton," in which the reference is more pop cultural than political, much less partisan--or even personal, really. The background (even if known, but really that doesn't matter) ends up being pretty much irrelevant, in the, well, end.

Stuff drips. Language morphs. And catchphrases are damn slippery things. Wrestle with that greased lightning if you will, but ... .

Christopher's defense of Kerry is sort of like his hatred of Giuliani. Lots of smoke, no substance.

We peons, having formerly served or presently serving in the US military were supposed to Looooveee Kerry. People like Christopher told us so. But we didn't listen to our betters, to those who didn't have a clue as to what is *reasonable* to expect or care about from someone's military service. Kerry had medals. Well, dang, so do I. Kerry had lots and had been under fire. I talked to a Nam vet a few weeks ago who had a sh*t-load of medals, too, and a pig bite on his leg (honestly!) a divinity degree, and a great case of paranoia... and guns. Should I vote for him for President?

Kerry spent four months on a swift boat, got some boo-boos and went home. The men, both from the Swiftboaters for Truth and the POW's who joined them, had *more* medals and had spent, every last one of them, FAR more time in Vietnam. So if I was to judge Kerry on his medals, and his opponents on their medals... he loses. If I was to judge Kerry on his time in theater and his opponents on their time in theater, Kerry loses. The very things that are supposed to give him ultimate moral authority give his opponents *more* ultimate moral authority.

If any of that really mattered the way that people like Christopher try to tell me are supposed to matter to *me* because I'm a veteran and am pro-military, Kerry loses.

But it doesn't matter.

Anyone who doesn't understand *why* veterans from Vietnam would hate Kerry with a *passion* and has to make up fiction about how it was just politics unfairly is so completely out of touch with anything remotely resembling military service that they should not EVER be trusted with any sort of authority over the military.

Service or NOT and even if he hadn't done what he did (his OWN testimony and words and actions) the fact that he's got a TIN EAR the size of an aircraft carrier when it comes to the military proves him outside that inside circle of military family. KERRY DOESN'T GET IT.

He threw away "his" medals, but wants to have them too.

That *all by itself* would be enough.

But he also, shamelessly, labeled his "brothers" war criminals and worse.

That *all by itself* would be enough.

But he ALSO met with the enemy, against US law, and encouraged them to continue and likely was personally directly a contributer to keeping out POW's in prison in Vietnam.

But neveryoumind, you're a veteran and look, Kerry has a Bronze Star. He threw it away, but so what? It wasn't his medal it was someone else's medal that he threw away to please his anti-war buddies... he still HAS his Bronze Star so shut the eff up you ignorant veteran and vote for him! He's a WAR HERO.

fls: I see fen's problem with wikipedia. They are a compendium of facts, not wishful thinking.

No, I just wish the site was more objective. Go back and read Kerry's entry: half the incriminating info is left out, and what little remains is bracketed by disqualifiers.

But thanks for reminding me of another complaint - the "sources" used to defend Kerry on the Wiki entry are leftist proganda rags like the NYTs and Boston Globe. Nice circular echo chamber running there.

reader: Wait a sec. The standard for a claim--let's take it out of the specific and speak more generally--is/should be that it hasn't been disproven?M

Fair enough. But you're forgetting that original claims are by Kerry, and he's not been able to prove them. They've been contested by Kerry's commanding officers and fellow troops who served alongside him.

If Kerry hadn't made his vietnam service the center of his campaign, the SwiftBoatVets would not have needed to counter his lies in the first place.

There's your Wiki edit, fls: Seriously, take up my challenge: edit the swiftboating entry to reflect that none of Kerry's claims have been substantiated

But you're forgetting that original claims are by Kerry, and he's not been able to prove them.

Yes, he has. The United States government awarded him medals. That creates the presumption that he earned the medals. The medal awards went unchallenged for over thirty years. This creates an independent presumption of accuracy and reliability.

Basically what you're arguing is analogous to someone claiming that a deed in your chain of title was forged thirty years ago, and asking you to prove that it wasn't.

He got a splinter in his arm from a self-inflicted [accidental] wound, then sheparded the wound [hand over splinter so it wouldn't fall out] over to sickbay where it was removed with tweezers. He demanded a PH for that and was denied.

"Kerry then did an end run around the issue and, as an officer himself, wrote himself up for that one."

Basically what you're arguing is analogous to someone claiming that a deed in your chain of title was forged thirty years ago,

Yes, he has. The United States government awarded him medals. That creates the presumption that he earned the medals.

Two points:

(1): Kerry had to be re-awarded the medals in the late 1970s. Why this was done remains unclear, since Kerry hasn't made the relevant records public. The possibility that he was stripped of his medals for his anti-American activities while still a member of the Reserves (as he would have been until 1978) cannot be ignored.

(2): In his 1971 Congressional testimony, Kerry said that the combat reports submitted by commanders, his own included, were falsified to cover up the atrocities being committed there. In other words, Kerry himself claims that the very reports used to determine which people deserved medals were not trustworthy, honest, or accurate. So by Kerry's OWN standard, the fact that he was awarded medals based on those reports cannot be considered evidence that he deserved them.

But in any case I'll be sure to remember the claim that "The US government said X, so the presumption is that X is true" when it comes time to discuss whether or not Iran is developing nukes and/or poses a threat to the United States. :)

There's also an understanding, for those who understand how the process works, that medal awards may or may not mean a whole lot.

It's like having a different teacher than your friend and doing the same assignment, you know yours is far better but your friend gets an A and you end up with a C because your teachers grade differently. Some commanders put their people in for every award possible and some don't. The whole process is entirely subjective.

I don't personally care that Kerry was a self-promoter. Every unit has one and they're relatively harmless if annoying as all heck. But the self-promoter doesn't get respect just because he or she manages to get an award. The respect comes from deeds, not ribbons or medals.

Some things are not in dispute at all, such as the fact that Kerry's purple hearts were really whimpy. Even *if* they were all from enemy action there is no dispute that he essentially got a band aid for each of them. I *promise* you that any soldier in this war who got a purple heart for a band aid would avoid mentioning it at all costs (unless she was *really* pretty... or was ugly but stacked... or she was ugly and not stacked but he was really drunk...)

But in the end the argument over medals is argument over moral authority. Does Kerry have it?

Note, again, "--let's take it out of the specific and speak more generally--".

That's an example of one of those increasingly ***rare, blog-commenting occasions*** in which I didn't just dash do a dash-off, as if in conversation with rotating acquaintances during a brief stopover at Happy Hour. Rather, I chose to put it that way, and deliberately.

It was, as advertised ("let's take it out of ..."), specifically pointing to a more general principle, not one owned by one side, or perspective, or the other.

The bottom three *** don't indicate a deleted asterisked note. (The original ones were solely to make what I said stand out, with some emphasis.)

I originally had a digression at the bottom of the comment, which I chose to delete, that's all, and I often use *** or --- as separators in blog-comments, in which it's generally not worth it to me to do actual transitions or extended narratives.